II

MODULE 1: ETHICS
Lesson 1: MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Introduction:

“Ethics might be called a system of moral values and duties. It has to do with ideal
human character, action and ends. What does a person door refrain from doing? What attitudes
will be viewed as good? And why should be they considered good? What is the highest good,
“the chief end of man.” the purpose of human existence? These are the questions the study of
ethics seeks to answer.

Objectives

- At the end of the lesson, the students shall have been able to differentiate the Moral
and Non-moral standards.

Readings:

MORAL

 concerned with or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior moral problems
a moral judgment
 able to teach a lesson of how people should behave a moral story.
 good entry 1 sense 13, virtuous They lead a moral life.
 able to tell right from wrong Humans are moral beings.

Examples of Morals

Morals are formed out of a person's values. Values are the foundation of a person's ability
to judge between right and wrong. Morals build on this to form specific, context-driven rules that
govern a person's behaviour. They're formed from a person's life experience and are subject to
opinion.

For example, someone's morals might indicate they're opposed to murder. That's a pretty
general rule of thumb. But what about something more mundane? While one person's morals
might tell them not to gossip, another person's morals might be quite different. They might not
consider gossip to be a bad thing. Consider the following examples of morals and see how many
line up with your core values and beliefs.

Morals in Society

Is there really a standard moral code in society these days? Yes, while most people follow
society's laws, they also abide by certain social mores, which are governed by morals. While
morals tend to be driven by personal beliefs and values, there are certainly some common
morals that most people agree on, such as:

3|Page
 Always tell the truth
 Do not destroy property
 Have courage
 Keep your promises
 Do not cheat
 Treat others as you want to be treated
 Do not judge
 Be dependable
 Be forgiving
 Have integrity
 Take responsibility for your actions
 Have patience
 Be loyal
 Have respect for yourself and others
 Be tolerant of differences
 Seek justice
 Have humility
 Be generous

The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments are often considered the basis for societies founded on Judeo-
Christian principles. You'll notice some overlap with the list above, as many of these principles
are still embedded in general society.
1. Do not have any gods before me
2. Do not make for yourself a graven image
3. Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Do not kill
7. Do not commit adultery
8. Do not steal
9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. Do not covet your neighbor's wife or possessions

Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards

Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right and
wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or relating to
human behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong) behavior.
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are
morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are

4|Page
morally good and morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral
values and moral principles.
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations.
Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic
examples of non-moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games,
and various house rules.
Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances)
are non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and
contexts.
The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from
non-moral standards:

a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit human
beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following or violating
some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one’s life or
wellbeing.

b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral standard states that
a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do that even if it
conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.
Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take precedence
over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones. A person may be
aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life to painting, but
morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to save
one’s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so. When a particular law becomes
seriously immoral, it may be people’s moral duty to exercise civil disobedience.
There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the
injustice of an evil law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such as
the antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).

c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.

Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or persons such as
nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the process of
making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor nullified by the
decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing about these standards, nonetheless, is that its
validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the reasons that are considered to support and
justify them.

d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.

5|Page
 Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more
accurate, however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly
similar situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally
right for anybody relevantly similar to P.

This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you would
them do unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of Justice, “It
cannot be right for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, merely
on the ground that they are two different individuals, and without there being any difference
between the natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a reasonable ground for
difference of treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of the principle of consistency, that is,
one ought to be consistent about one’s value judgments.

e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.

Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain person or
group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each
person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.

Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in morality

requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties.

f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary. Prescriptively indicates
the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards. These moral standards are generally put
forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love
your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to action.
Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to
produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt.

If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is
not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards. On the
contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g. refusing to wear
tattered jeans). (Copyright 2013 by Jensen DG. Mañebog)

NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right
or wrong in a non-moral way. ... Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and
aesthetics or even with religion. As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or
preference.

What is the difference between moral and non-moral standards?

The difference between moral and non-moral standards is pretty simple: non-moral
standards are practical, or to use Kant’s terminology, hypothetical. Meanwhile, moral standards
are normative, or to categorical. Now, many people will tell you that these kinds of standards are

6|Page
fundamentally different in the manner that Hume points out with his is-ought problem . After all,
non-moral standards can only tell you how to achieve acceptably that which you desire to
achieve, while moral standards tell you what you may go about achieving at all, and/or
(depending on the mix of consequentialism or deontology) how you may even begin to achieve
anything.

This is why Kant makes the distinction he does: a hypothetical imperative says “you need
to do (or not do) this if you want that,” whereas a categorical imperative applies for any action
you might take: “you need to do (or not do) this if you want to do anything at all.” Removing the
“anything at all” part because it is redundant, you can see it’s full normative weight.

This is, then, the fundamental difference. A non-moral standard is used to assess or value
some instrumental thing, and does not hold any binding normative weight. You don’t morally
condemn people that aren’t very good at art, even though their art doesn’t meet your standards.
And you aren’t morally wrong for making the wrong move in Chess, even though you’re going
against the hypothetical imperative if you want to win.

7|Page